Ron Paul's FoxTV Presidential Debate
The Fox News Channel hosted a presidential debate among all eleven Republican candidates the other night. Former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and current Republican congressman Ron Paul participated in that debate.
Ron Paul was lambasted by Rudy Giuliani during the debate after his comments on the cause of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. Ron Paul basically said that the terrorists did it because we were over there. I don't completely agree with Ron Paul personally, as I believe that Islamofascism does play a significant role in their motives. I think it is idiotic to believe that it was our fault that the USA was attacked, that we are to blame for the actions of the terrorist highjackers that day. That is akin to believing that it was our fault that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Ron Paul has been lambasted by the conservative critics and talk show hosts about his "It Was Our Fault, Blame America First" stance. That being said, I do agree that Ron Paul is correct in that our interventionist foreign policy needs to go. Didn't George Washington warn us about "entangling alliances" with foreign governments in his farewell address?
That whole debate served as a reminder as to why we are here, "we" being libertarians both big "L" and small. All the other candidates were touting their support for bigger and more bloated government all around. Debate winner (pollwise) Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on many issues over the years for political expediency, and he proudly supports a renewed ban on assault weapons. In other words he has a deeply held hatred and contempt for our Second Amendment. I just bought an AK-47 assault rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition a couple weeks ago, and I'll be goddamned if I'll vote for any presidential candidate who wishes to ban my purchase!
Rudy Giuliani? He has made no secret of his desire to ban guns. He is one of many Republicans who put safety and security on a higher level than liberty. Do we need to be reminded of Ben Franklin's words on that very subject? Yet neoconservative pundits and talk show hosts including Michael Medved and Sean Hannity support and love both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Medved remarked that Rudy's smackdown of Ron Paul during the debate was a demonstration of true leadership, "a true leader who displayed his skill after the WTC attacks versus a nutcase like Ron Paul" to paraphrase his words.
Medved and Hannity also believe that John McCain would make a worthy president. John McCain who strongly opposed the Bush tax cuts. Two words: McCain-Feingold. Remember that little thing he pushed through called "campaign finance reform?" It amounted to a chilling and vicious attack on the First Amendment as we all know. Bush signed it into law thinking that the US Supreme Court would bail him out and overturn this horrid piece of legislation. Instead they ignored the Bill of Rights and upheld this law. Yet these conservative pundits who call for limited and constitutional government on one hand say that John McCain would make a great president on the other. Pure hypocrisy.
Mike Huckabee? As governor of Arkansas, he claimed to have cut spending and lower taxes, yet he hiked that state's gasoline tax in order to build roads. The voters approved of those new gas taxes then. Do they now? With gasoline at $3.20 per gallon? Why didn't Huckabee further cut government spending and wasteful programs in order to fund these roads instead? Never trust a politician who claims to support lower taxes on one hand and higher taxes on the other. This sounds a bit like our own governor in Indiana who pushed for higher cigarette taxes.
Will former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich jump into the race? Let's hope not. He brought the Republicans to power in both houses of congress in 1994 based on his "Contract With America" outlining his plans to reduce the size and scope of government. He sounded libertarian back in those days. But we all know what happened. After the Republican congress gained power in 1995, they failed to cut even one single big government program.
Newt Gingrich showed lily-liveredness and limp-wristedness as House Speaker. He went into meetings with President Clinton to negotiate leglislation and spending and would come out proudly announcing that he worked out a great deal with Clinton giving him basically all the big spending and big government he wanted. One could say that he sucked up to Bill Clinton again and again during those meetings. In fact he sucked up to him so much that he would come out of those meetings with more of President Clinton's sticky white pungent DNA splattered all over his suit and tie than what Monica Lewinsky ever had on her dress. Keep this in mind whenever you see Newt Gingrich on television spouting about anything. Let's also not forget that Gingrich claimed last year that the US Constitution should not always apply to some people in certain situations. Scary stuff. This man has no business ever being our president.
While I may not completely agree with Ron Paul's weak-at-the-knees stance on dealing with diaperheaded Islamofascists, Ron Paul has it right on so many other issues. He is the only Republican candidate who truly believes in libertarian ideals about the role of government. Do they forget that the Ron Paul is still a Life Member of the Libertarian Party despite his being a Republican congressman?
The fact that all the other neocons are raking him over the coals shows that their commitment to smaller government is lip service. This whole scenario illustrates why we are here and why we do what we do. For too many Republicans, there is only one issue that matters to them, security. They value safety and security over liberty. They ignore Ron Paul's positions on every single other issue. For them, if a candidate is weak on terrorism, they are out of the game no matter what their positions are on every other issue. Ron Paul is right on so many other issues that it places him miles above the rest of the bunch. You are asking yourself "Is he saying that he will support Ron Paul instead of the Libertarian Party candidate next year?" A moot point.
I will predict here and now that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination next year. Republican voters by nature hate the idea of constitutional government. Sadly, they have a love, admiration, and support for bigger and more bloated government. Republican voters have a love affair with the Patriot Act. They cringed when the flag sacredization amendment failed to pass the US Senate last year. They love the concept of the Real ID bill being passed. They enjoy taking their shoes off at the airport if it means that Big-Daddy-Government will protect them from all those nasty terrorists carrying suitcase nukes.Republicans love their pork just as much as the Democrats, and it is why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination.
I predict that Mitt Romney will win the nomination on the Republican side, that Al Gore will jump in and win the Democrat nomination and ultimately the presidency. Too many people believe Al Gore's bullshit about global warming and the polar bears dying up north. But I digress. If Ron Paul does happen to win the Republican nomination, I predict that there will be a move at next year's Libertarian national convention to not put forth a Libertarian candidate at all. We shall see. Speaking of the 2008 Libertarian Party National Convention, it will take place from May 22-26, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. Mark your calendars now and be there a year from now.
Again, why are we here? Why are we Libertarians and not Republicrats? I think the foregoing analysis has answered that question. The recent presidential debate served as a reminder of the Republicans' and conservatives' love of big government. It sets them squarely apart from us. Their contempt for Ron Paul further illustrates that point beautifully for us, does it not?
Greg Hertzsch
LP Indiana
Ron Paul was lambasted by Rudy Giuliani during the debate after his comments on the cause of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks. Ron Paul basically said that the terrorists did it because we were over there. I don't completely agree with Ron Paul personally, as I believe that Islamofascism does play a significant role in their motives. I think it is idiotic to believe that it was our fault that the USA was attacked, that we are to blame for the actions of the terrorist highjackers that day. That is akin to believing that it was our fault that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
Ron Paul has been lambasted by the conservative critics and talk show hosts about his "It Was Our Fault, Blame America First" stance. That being said, I do agree that Ron Paul is correct in that our interventionist foreign policy needs to go. Didn't George Washington warn us about "entangling alliances" with foreign governments in his farewell address?
That whole debate served as a reminder as to why we are here, "we" being libertarians both big "L" and small. All the other candidates were touting their support for bigger and more bloated government all around. Debate winner (pollwise) Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on many issues over the years for political expediency, and he proudly supports a renewed ban on assault weapons. In other words he has a deeply held hatred and contempt for our Second Amendment. I just bought an AK-47 assault rifle and 1000 rounds of ammunition a couple weeks ago, and I'll be goddamned if I'll vote for any presidential candidate who wishes to ban my purchase!
Rudy Giuliani? He has made no secret of his desire to ban guns. He is one of many Republicans who put safety and security on a higher level than liberty. Do we need to be reminded of Ben Franklin's words on that very subject? Yet neoconservative pundits and talk show hosts including Michael Medved and Sean Hannity support and love both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. Medved remarked that Rudy's smackdown of Ron Paul during the debate was a demonstration of true leadership, "a true leader who displayed his skill after the WTC attacks versus a nutcase like Ron Paul" to paraphrase his words.
Medved and Hannity also believe that John McCain would make a worthy president. John McCain who strongly opposed the Bush tax cuts. Two words: McCain-Feingold. Remember that little thing he pushed through called "campaign finance reform?" It amounted to a chilling and vicious attack on the First Amendment as we all know. Bush signed it into law thinking that the US Supreme Court would bail him out and overturn this horrid piece of legislation. Instead they ignored the Bill of Rights and upheld this law. Yet these conservative pundits who call for limited and constitutional government on one hand say that John McCain would make a great president on the other. Pure hypocrisy.
Mike Huckabee? As governor of Arkansas, he claimed to have cut spending and lower taxes, yet he hiked that state's gasoline tax in order to build roads. The voters approved of those new gas taxes then. Do they now? With gasoline at $3.20 per gallon? Why didn't Huckabee further cut government spending and wasteful programs in order to fund these roads instead? Never trust a politician who claims to support lower taxes on one hand and higher taxes on the other. This sounds a bit like our own governor in Indiana who pushed for higher cigarette taxes.
Will former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich jump into the race? Let's hope not. He brought the Republicans to power in both houses of congress in 1994 based on his "Contract With America" outlining his plans to reduce the size and scope of government. He sounded libertarian back in those days. But we all know what happened. After the Republican congress gained power in 1995, they failed to cut even one single big government program.
Newt Gingrich showed lily-liveredness and limp-wristedness as House Speaker. He went into meetings with President Clinton to negotiate leglislation and spending and would come out proudly announcing that he worked out a great deal with Clinton giving him basically all the big spending and big government he wanted. One could say that he sucked up to Bill Clinton again and again during those meetings. In fact he sucked up to him so much that he would come out of those meetings with more of President Clinton's sticky white pungent DNA splattered all over his suit and tie than what Monica Lewinsky ever had on her dress. Keep this in mind whenever you see Newt Gingrich on television spouting about anything. Let's also not forget that Gingrich claimed last year that the US Constitution should not always apply to some people in certain situations. Scary stuff. This man has no business ever being our president.
While I may not completely agree with Ron Paul's weak-at-the-knees stance on dealing with diaperheaded Islamofascists, Ron Paul has it right on so many other issues. He is the only Republican candidate who truly believes in libertarian ideals about the role of government. Do they forget that the Ron Paul is still a Life Member of the Libertarian Party despite his being a Republican congressman?
The fact that all the other neocons are raking him over the coals shows that their commitment to smaller government is lip service. This whole scenario illustrates why we are here and why we do what we do. For too many Republicans, there is only one issue that matters to them, security. They value safety and security over liberty. They ignore Ron Paul's positions on every single other issue. For them, if a candidate is weak on terrorism, they are out of the game no matter what their positions are on every other issue. Ron Paul is right on so many other issues that it places him miles above the rest of the bunch. You are asking yourself "Is he saying that he will support Ron Paul instead of the Libertarian Party candidate next year?" A moot point.
I will predict here and now that Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination next year. Republican voters by nature hate the idea of constitutional government. Sadly, they have a love, admiration, and support for bigger and more bloated government. Republican voters have a love affair with the Patriot Act. They cringed when the flag sacredization amendment failed to pass the US Senate last year. They love the concept of the Real ID bill being passed. They enjoy taking their shoes off at the airport if it means that Big-Daddy-Government will protect them from all those nasty terrorists carrying suitcase nukes.Republicans love their pork just as much as the Democrats, and it is why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination.
I predict that Mitt Romney will win the nomination on the Republican side, that Al Gore will jump in and win the Democrat nomination and ultimately the presidency. Too many people believe Al Gore's bullshit about global warming and the polar bears dying up north. But I digress. If Ron Paul does happen to win the Republican nomination, I predict that there will be a move at next year's Libertarian national convention to not put forth a Libertarian candidate at all. We shall see. Speaking of the 2008 Libertarian Party National Convention, it will take place from May 22-26, 2008 in Denver, Colorado. Mark your calendars now and be there a year from now.
Again, why are we here? Why are we Libertarians and not Republicrats? I think the foregoing analysis has answered that question. The recent presidential debate served as a reminder of the Republicans' and conservatives' love of big government. It sets them squarely apart from us. Their contempt for Ron Paul further illustrates that point beautifully for us, does it not?
Greg Hertzsch
LP Indiana
posted by George Conrad Dick at 7:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home